WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Senate committee on Tuesday held the first congressional hearing in more than four decades on the president’s authority to launch a nuclear strike, amid concern that tensions over North Korea’s weapons program could lead to war.

The number one reason we don’t shoot down North Korea’s missiles is that we cannot.

It should be noted that missile defense technology is not 100% reliable, especially if they shoot multiple rockets at once.

Hence why NK disarmament in the long-term is preferable. The sooner it's done the easier it will be for everyone. (At some point it will become impossible) Maybe if they did this during the Bill Clinton era there would have been far less trouble. There was a time when they didn't have nukes at all.

Another reason why it's not set in stone that military intervention = always bad.

If South and North Korea are going to have a war, it’s going to be all because of Trump.

"all because of Trump" no, I can think of dozens of other people who have far more responsibility for this mess, like the last 3 presidents and of course the psychopath in chief Kim Jong Un. And Karl Marx and everyone who ever took his ideology seriously without which there would be no communist NK.

Last edited by Tree on Fri Nov 17, 2017 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tree wrote:"all because of Trump" no, I can think of dozens of other people who have far more responsibility for this mess, like the last 3 presidents and of course the psychopath in chief Kim Jong Un. And Karl Marx and everyone who ever took his ideology seriously without which there would be no communist NK.

And Vasco de Gama for discovering India, and Mitochondial Eve for being the ultimate forebear of Kim Jong Un's mother who bore him, and Yahweh for magicking up the world.... and anyone else except the two narcissists beating their chests at each other while possessing the capacity to rain destruction down on the world. Oh wait, no - one of those is at fault too, but not the other one: he's a saint.

And remember, Im So-jeong asserts otherwise, so you must be wrong. Right? That's how it works - we divine truth by how confidently someone asserts their position.

I am amused by these attempts to play the ultra-skeptic while in reality you're either in denial or have a really short attention span.

You quoted someone say:

If South and North Korea are going to have a war, it’s going to be all because of Trump.

"ALL because of Trump"? Not even remotely true. This is propaganda. In order to find the culprits for the problem and assess their level of responsibility for it, you have to go back to the roots.

Why did NK get nukes? Clinton allowed them to with a shitty deal that was just a cover to continue their program in other ways and Bush wasn't forceful enough to stop them.

Why was NK allowed to continue this? Obama did nothing.

Why does NK even exist and why is Kim regime even in power? The US and SK didn't destroy it when they had a chance. Well it's only going to get a whole lot worse.

Trump will have his share of blame, but it's not a lot. There's actually very little he could do to avert a crisis there.

He can sit idle - shit will happen, Kim will think US is weak and attack SK (US is not going to defend SK if Kim can point nukes at the US to get it to back off, period)He can go to war - shit will happen (doesn't mean bigger shit won't happen later down the line from inaction)He can try diplomacy - very likely it won't succeed because the Kim regime doesn't accept any negotiations on the nukes and ICBMs, that's not a point they want to negotiate

What do you want him to do at this point?

I am still intrigued as to where you purchased your crystal ball. Was it from Amazon, by chance?

You don't need a crystal ball to notice that Kim's goals are Korean reunification under communism and the only thing stopping them is the promise of US retaliation.

But as I said, US will not interfere if Kim can start pointing ICBMs at the US armed with nukes. No ally will be worth the risk then.

Tree wrote:I am amused by these attempts to play the ultra-skeptic while in reality you're either in denial or have a really short attention span.

You are amused by the products of your own imagination.

As I obviously cited the paragraph in question, I also know the context. But I am provoking you to actually note the context which consequently undermines your confident assertions. To wit: you cite the post in which I quote some lady on the street saying X, you ignore the entire content of my post to address that quote instead, and you do so by just asserting your way through the entire conversation.

Tree wrote:You quoted someone say:

If South and North Korea are going to have a war, it’s going to be all because of Trump.

"ALL because of Trump"? Not even remotely true.

See?

You did it again.

It's quite simple Tree, you actually seem to think you can dictate reality, that your opinion is the law whereas it's not actually worth a ha'penny jizz because there's nothing beneath the surface of the assertion except the assertion itself.

That was the entire point of that post - to hold up a mirror to you.

Tree wrote:This is propaganda.

Propaganda by those dastardly South Koreans who are uber secretly in league with North Korea and want to be invaded by him?

Crackpottery - and predicted crackpottery at that. It's like you didn't even read my post!

I pre-empted you in that very post by telling that lady that she's committing treason because... Tree disagrees with her.

Tree wrote:In order to find the culprits for the problem and assess their level of responsibility for it, you have to go back to the roots.

Culprits for what problems?

She said IF X happens, then Y is to blame.

She's talking about a proximate relation, i.e. someone blustering and loudmouthing and escalating the tension which then creates the actual conflict.

While I don't accept her opinion as fact, hers at least doesn't depend on specious forays into handwaving to evade criticism of a single individual.

Tree wrote:Why did NK get nukes? Clinton allowed them to with a shitty deal that was just a cover to continue their program in other ways and Bush wasn't forceful enough to stop them.

Yes, we did this, and Vasco de Gama discovered India, and Mitochondrial Eve ultimately birthed Jong-un's mother. Also, the price of fish is increasing, isn't it?

Tree wrote:Why was NK allowed to continue this? Obama did nothing.

Why on Earth did Genghis Khan fail to conquer Korea?

Tree wrote:Why does NK even exist and why is Kim regime even in power? The US and SK didn't destroy it when they had a chance. Well it's only going to get a whole lot worse.

Those Altaic Koguryo people who colonized the Korean peninsula have a lot to answer for!

Tree wrote:Trump will have his share of blame, but it's not a lot. There's actually very little he could do to avert a crisis there.

I pre-empted all of this in the post you're supposedly replying to!

Sparhafoc wrote:Now, now South Korean lady, get with the program! Trump's here to save you from war by going to war. You know - there's this threat, the potential of North Korea attacking you because, as we all know, that's what bad people do. So what we're going to do is ensure that threat occurs by attacking North Korea, because that's what good people do. It makes sense just so long as you give it not a moment's thought. Thinking about it is, for all intents and purposes, treason.

One thing Trump could do to avert a crisis there is to not cause a crisis there.

Clearly, this is rocket science.

Tree wrote:He can sit idle - shit will happen, Kim will think US is weak and attack SK (US is not going to defend SK if Kim can point nukes at the US to get it to back off, period)

Is that what you think? Why don't you dictate up some more reality according to the gospel of Tree. Some ad hominem attacks on your interlocutor will show how stellar your reasoning capacity is - I mean, look how well it worked calling me treasonous!

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually intolerant may constantly accuse other people of being intolerant. It incorporates blame shifting.

Note the point about the habitual nature of the phenomenon, how the person engaging in such projection constantly accuses others of that quality?

Tree wrote:This shows not only how confused you are morally...

Tree wrote:A total waste of human potential that this morally confused simpleton just dismisses out of hand.

Here I am not just confused, but I am a simpleton too!

Tree wrote:You are very confused morally.

Tree wrote:I hope that clarifies why I will not retract any statement I made about Sparhafoc's character.

What is clear is that I am not confused by your repeated specious arguments, so if I am confused, I am not confused enough for you.